HELP needed understanding AIFF & FLAC "lossless" formats

"Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d673a892-3488-4f31-b751-973061020a66@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
> duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.
>
Terry, the above has important misunderstandings.

AIFF is not a compressed format.
AIFF-C is what is known as a "container" format, meaning that it can contain
various things. Some of these are uncompressed PCM, with varying bitrates
and word lengths. Others are lossy compression codecs.

FLAC does not produce a "near perfect" duplicate. It is an exact duplicate.
No information is lost. The file can be converted any number of times back
and forth between PCM and FLAC and the exact bits remain.

> If this is so, then what does the original tune have to be played in
> for me to make a copy of it?
> If it's a MP3 tune then it's already compressed, so that's not good.
> Would these formats be only good for vinyl copying or master tapes?
>
> Terry
>
Winamp works with FLAC if it you add the plugin:
http://www.winamp.com/plugins/search/?q=flac. You can also simply decompress
a FLAC file using http://flac.sourceforge.net/ , and play the resulting file
in WMP or your choice of media player.

Someone else will have to be the Apple expert.

Regards,
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Terry <[email protected]> wrote:
>I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
>duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

Not NEAR perfect. Perfect. The bits go in, the bits come out. The
ones that come out are identical to what goes in. This is the whole
point of digital systems.

>If this is so, then what does the original tune have to be played in
>for me to make a copy of it?

Whatever you want. Whatever goes in is what comes out.

>If it's a MP3 tune then it's already compressed, so that's not good.
>Would these formats be only good for vinyl copying or master tapes?

It's for anything you want. A CD, for instance, is straight 16-bit 44.1
data. You put it into a 16-bit 44.1 AIFF file, you have precisely what
was on the CD. You put it out to another CD, the two CDs are identical,
bit for bit.

This is the way normal digital systems are.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Terry" wrote ...
>I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
> duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.

That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?

AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
(i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
(lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.

FLAC is a *lossless* compression codec that produces
bit-perfect reproduction. Not "near-perfect". Perfect.

> If this is so, then what does the original tune have to be played in
> for me to make a copy of it?

Difficult to answer that question without knowing what you
are trying to do here? Presumably you would need an original
signal (or file) of sufficient quality to warrant even worrying
about making bit-perfect copies.

> If it's a MP3 tune then it's already compressed, so that's not good.

If you have an MP3 file, then there is no point in converting it to
anything else unless you wanted to compress it even further.
Once encoded into MP3 (at least most of the popular variants)
the loss has already happened and there's nothing you can do to
get it back.

> Would these formats be only good for vinyl copying or master tapes?

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on a lot of other factors you did
not mention. Are you going somewhere specific with this, or
are you just asking general questions?

Richard Crowley <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Terry" wrote ...
>>I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
>> duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.
>
>That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?
>
>AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
>(i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
>(lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.

I think that's really AIFF-C, isn't it? The original .aiff format wasn't
a container file, was it? I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
reversed?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>"Terry" wrote ...
>>>I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
>>> duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.
>>
>>That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?
>>
>>AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
>>(i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
>>(lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.
>
> I think that's really AIFF-C, isn't it? The original .aiff format wasn't
> a container file, was it?

Wikipedia identifies AIFF as a "Audio-Only Media Container"
along with AU and WAV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_format_%28digital%29

Yes, the compressed version is called "AIFF-C", but with so
much other incorrect information, it wasn't clear exactly what
the OP is inquiring about.

> I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
> reversed?

Leave it to Apple to come up with something different.
Frequently, it seems, just to be different.

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> "Terry" wrote ...
>>>> I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
>>>> duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.
>>> That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?
>>>
>>> AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
>>> (i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
>>> (lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.
>> I think that's really AIFF-C, isn't it? The original .aiff format wasn't
>> a container file, was it?
>
> Wikipedia identifies AIFF as a "Audio-Only Media Container"
> along with AU and WAV.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_format_%28digital%29
>
> Yes, the compressed version is called "AIFF-C", but with so
> much other incorrect information, it wasn't clear exactly what
> the OP is inquiring about.
>
>> I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
>> reversed?
>
> Leave it to Apple to come up with something different.
> Frequently, it seems, just to be different.
>
>

Actually, I believe AIFF files predate WAV files by a few years.

"Romeo Rondeau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:QB30k.3170$xZ.514@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
>>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>> "Terry" wrote ...
>>>>> I read that AIFF & FLAC formats can copy your music to a near perfect
>>>>> duplicate without compressing or looseing any bits.
>>>> That is incorrect. Can you provide a reference where you read it?
>>>>
>>>> AIFF is a *container* that may contain uncompressed
>>>> (i.e. bit-perfect) audio, OR one of several compressed
>>>> (lilely lossy, meaning not bit-perfect) codecs.
>>> I think that's really AIFF-C, isn't it? The original .aiff format
>>> wasn't
>>> a container file, was it?
>>
>> Wikipedia identifies AIFF as a "Audio-Only Media Container"
>> along with AU and WAV.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_format_%28digital%29
>>
>> Yes, the compressed version is called "AIFF-C", but with so
>> much other incorrect information, it wasn't clear exactly what
>> the OP is inquiring about.
>>
>>> I thought it was a swanky .wav with byte order
>>> reversed?
>>
>> Leave it to Apple to come up with something different.
>> Frequently, it seems, just to be different.
>
> Actually, I believe AIFF files predate WAV files by a few years.

... and the difference in byte order is probably because it was developed in
a Motorola environment and wave was in an Intel environment. I have the same
issue at work with TIFF files - they can be in either order.

Sean